Comments on: Honeycomb vase designer says whisky campaign "unabashedly exploits" his workhttp://www.dezeen.com/2013/07/24/honeycomb-vase-designer-says-whisky-campaign-unabashedly-exploits-his-work/
architecture and design magazineTue, 31 Mar 2015 16:36:00 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Jessicahttp://www.dezeen.com/2013/07/24/honeycomb-vase-designer-says-whisky-campaign-unabashedly-exploits-his-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1230245
Thu, 08 Aug 2013 15:42:00 +0000http://admin.dezeen.com/?p=338073#comment-1230245Surely it’s the bees intellectual property!
]]>By: Lenkahttp://www.dezeen.com/2013/07/24/honeycomb-vase-designer-says-whisky-campaign-unabashedly-exploits-his-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1222148
Sun, 28 Jul 2013 18:08:00 +0000http://admin.dezeen.com/?p=338073#comment-1222148When I saw the Dewar’s Highlander Honey bottle, I thought it was Studio Libertiny’s work – except for one difference: Libertiny allows the bees to build his forms naturally, which makes each piece totally unique, and Sid Lee might as well have had the bottle 3D-printed. It’s nothing more than a badly copied empty object. Forcing the bees through tubes into a very narrow glass contained space to do their work? Shame on them.
]]>By: Airbornehttp://www.dezeen.com/2013/07/24/honeycomb-vase-designer-says-whisky-campaign-unabashedly-exploits-his-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1221364
Sat, 27 Jul 2013 00:48:00 +0000http://admin.dezeen.com/?p=338073#comment-1221364Well… I believe poetic language is a bit overstated. The idea which is communicated is that bees created something by their own design. When the production process is explained, how the bees were forced to shape something in a mould, it is a lot less poetic.

It is not an industrial design of course, because the product is useless. And it is poor art because it is deceiving in a way and the end result doesn’t have a meaning other than a demonstration. This leaves no lasting impression, at most a smile on people’s faces.

It is understandable that it receives exposure in media which is hungry for products that are re-invented and always evolving. And the reason why we haven’t seen this many times before is easily explained by the cumbersome process and superficial end result. I think as design it is perfect for advertising but as art it fails to make a statement.

]]>By: frankyhttp://www.dezeen.com/2013/07/24/honeycomb-vase-designer-says-whisky-campaign-unabashedly-exploits-his-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1220584
Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:10:00 +0000http://admin.dezeen.com/?p=338073#comment-1220584Actually Libertiny copied this idea from my grandmother, who used to make objects such as heart-shaped candles out of honeycomb beeswax sheets which you can buy in your local craft shop!
]]>By: LukaszDzenikhttp://www.dezeen.com/2013/07/24/honeycomb-vase-designer-says-whisky-campaign-unabashedly-exploits-his-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1220517
Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:16:00 +0000http://admin.dezeen.com/?p=338073#comment-1220517Of course, no designer has monopoly on the technique. No artist claims the right to use a particular colour (with the exception of IKB). Certainly, the concept of similarity in the situation may be explained as an interesting and ridiculous theory such as morphic resonance (good luck rocket scientists).

Question and challenge in the dispute does not lie in technology. It seems to me that the problem is far deeper. It is not about who copied what (it is clear that the work of Studio Libertiny is older), the problem is the nature of this whole debate.

Here it seems hypocritical to hold on to the view of intellectual property concept. What is it? Something that has patent marking XYZ recognised by the United Nations or the United Federation of Planet and special Mister Spock, or just an idea in non-american heads? Is this an original art product which is presented here as a work that is valued (with applause) more than others? Libertíny has no monopoly on the technology, but his defense of intellectual property is not oriented in this direction.

The overall concept seems to resemble Libertiny`s work. There are more similarities than just technical. The idea that in today’s globalised village someone on the opposite side of the planet comes with the same idea, poetry and never heard of similar motifs (for example, the work in MoMA, or Art Basil) is difficult to sustain. I repeat, the problem is not with the technology. The problem is in believing that the vox populi is vox dei.

I believe that the reaction of Studio Libertiny is not intended to criticise the fact that someone will use for example the same red colour. The critical point is appropriation of originality of something that is long overdue. This is a critical point of contention. That someone is working with bees is great (do it!) Let everyone work with bees (more bees, more honey). However, it is ridiculous to imagine the world with something that was already there and pretend that it had only been discovered.

In conclusion, I would like to see an alternative world in which this situation is be reversed. How would you serve justice or just professional ethics? In any case, now I understand the meaning of rhetorical figure “Yes we can!”